Your IQ?

I add another question. And what about people with Savant syndrome? What about those guys who look like retarded guys but who can tell you with all kind of details what happened every day of his life? What about those guys who will tell you the first 5000 decimals of pi by calculating them or tell you the exact result of all kind of operations such as 7^66? What about that guy who will draw you the map of Roma by flying once on it?

Search on Youtube for Savant Syndrome and you'll see lol

There are obviously just so many things we ignore about ourselves...

There is a difference between "intelligent" and "smart" (aka knowledgeable). Besides these, there are also high-functioning autism spectrum disorders and other strongly correlated conditions like Savant syndrome. These are all separate variables of ones life. Being knowledgeable is often seen as being intelligent, and not knowing a lot as deing dumb. This way of viewing is so established in this society that it even makes me sick. When you look at some other societies, countries, etc, then you'll find that this distinction is not so blended together as here. This is the same as StridAst described, only a bit more generalized.

Furthermore, I hear people talks about certain famous individuals with lots of topics they're good at, like da Vinci. These kinds of people are called Polymath, and it is often correlated with exceptional intelligence and/or knowledge. I don't understand the relation of polymaths to this discussion of how many different intelligence values one can be assigned to an individual.

Continuing a little on the conversation, you must also recognize that intelligence is not coupled with physical skills (like working with your hands, talking, expressing yourself) but rather the opposite. It has been shown that there is a correlation with high intelligence and the verbal-performal gap. I can't find a wiki page on it but what it means is that the person can think about something, but actually performing it (whether it be explaining it in human language or working with his hands) is very difficult and will often result in people mistakingly thinking he doesn't understand/know about the matter he's thinking about. It is also about not being able to solve practical problems like how to fix something that's broken. In kids this almost always result in guardians/superiors labeling them with learning disability.

Do you all think it would be better to have something of a test that was less about a rating and more about and observation of a thought process? Instead of rating a human in relation to another, it would be to set all as equal but analyze their methods of thinking... somehow. If it was found that multiple people thought things similarly but one of them was able to recollect and gather things they learned much easier than others I think we would be on to something.

Zom-B To respond to your statement about wondering why polymath was thrown in there. It just seems to fit to me, when talking about people being good in different areas from each other, and wondering how to compare apples to oranges so to speak. It seemed to me the logical next step was throw in a whole bowl of fruit to compare to an apple and the orange. Kind of to point out through complication that's its impossible to compare one intelligence to another. The mind is just too complex to really compare one person to another. (My stance from the beginning)
As to your comments regarding physical skills like working with your hands, etc. I must respectfully disagree. I am well aware the usual scientific stance on intellect revolves around the kind of intelligence that the scientific community themselves respect the most. (the scientific community includes of course psychiatrists etc, as well as the medical fields) However I disagree completely with this interpretation of intellect.

When it comes down to it, intellect is the brains capacity to process data. This data can be in ANY form the brain must process. Therefore anything we do or think uses our respective intellects to do or to think. Controlling those fine motor skills, or honing one's reflexes to a knife edge, may have different results from honing one's mind with higher education to perform complex calculations. However it's still simply training one's mind to get more out of it. As such it's 100% dependent on a person's natural capacity for that kind of mental processing. Not everyone can learn to be a scientist. Likewise not everyone can develop the reflexes or coordination to be an olympic athlete. Anyone can build muscles. Not anyone can win an olympic gold medal regardless of how many muscles they build up. the mental component is still there.
When it comes down to it, we take a LOT of what our brains due for granted. We do not really appreciate the extent of just what all has to be processed. I don't personally think you can pick and choose to call something "intellect" when it doesn't reflect the full potential of the brain. And understanding the brain's complex behavior is still a long ways away for us. We can't even make a computer program recognize things with a camera the way we do with vision, and the simple act of seeing is proving to be amazingly complex processing. Let alone sound processing for familiar sounds. Add in the sense of touch. (the feedback of which allows for reflexes) If we can't even understand mental vision processing well enough to replicate it with a computer and a camera, then how on earth can we attempt to classify much more complicated higher reasoning leaps of the brain?
My point remains: Intelligence is a great unknown, that is routinely treated by society as a known and understood thing. However we are far from knowing much about it, and take great leaps of judgment, largely unfounded, when attempting to classify and "rate" someone's intellect. This has more in common with prejudice and bias then with the scientific method. So I dislike I.Q. tests and results, and reject any definition of intelligence that doesn't acknowledge all forms of mental processing. Meh I'm babbling here, and I've written another long winded pointless post. If you've read all this way then props to you

P.S. I just realized how ironic it is when I finish typing that and click on "Post Quick Reply" (and yes I double posted. Also ironic in this thread) :thinking:

fuck.. i got 107 XD

lol, why fuck? You're above the average, isn't that enough for you?

Hallucynogenyc said:

lol, why fuck? You're above the average, isn't that enough for you?

Click to expand...

Maybe a lower score was expected, and the f-bomb was out of surprise?

finally reached to made it work with my settings (damn javascripts ), and tried on-the-fly, it scored 138, but i don't know about how good is that test (i mean, they have 39 puzzles, but the last time that i've found one of these IQ tests on books, it was like 250 or 300 puzzles ..... aren't 39 a bit too few ?)

Anyway ..... must try one time that i have time to think about their puzzles and try to understand where i replied wrong (too bad that they don't say you what questions you marked wrong and why ..... when i do something wrong, i'm always curious to know where and why .....)

Those 300 puzzles test are of course more reliable, but seeing that Mensa uses exactly the same kind of test to accept their members, makes me think they can't be so wrong xd

Uhm, no, i don't mean they are wrong, i mean just that they looks a bit "incomplete" ..... But probably you're right ..... or, at least, we can suppose that they know what they are doing (i mean, after all, they don't seem politicians ..... )

BTW, i may be curious to see those tests applied to our politicians, too ..... also not in a serious way, maybe something funny like "if you don't reach 100, we don't give you the key of the toilet" or similar :na: :crackup:

IQ is a bunch of BS to me. 99% of the people with high IQ's have no common sense which to me is more important than IQ.

erm... sorry, but, how many people with high IQ do you know? I mean, where did you got that "99%" from?

Also, even if you were right, what's the point of that? IQ has nothing to do with common sense (at least in theory), so your last post is like if I come and say "IQ is BS because 99% of people with high IQ is blonde"

Hallucynogenyc said:

lol, why fuck? You're above the average, isn't that enough for you?

Click to expand...

no.. it is not enough i noticed a lot of members at 120+ in the poll... but maybe they cheated ..... i don't know.

i expected to do a bit more of 107.. about 115...

Hallucynogenyc said:

erm... sorry, but, how many people with high IQ do you know? I mean, where did you got that "99%" from?

Also, even if you were right, what's the point of that? IQ has nothing to do with common sense (at least in theory), so your last post is like if I come and say "IQ is BS because 99% of people with high IQ is blonde"

Click to expand...

Ok, the 99% may have been a bit exaggerated. Tell me, what's the point in having a high IQ if you can't change a tire? I'm just saying that IQ isn't everything.

mfo said:

Ok, the 99% may have been a bit exaggerated. Tell me, what's the point in having a high IQ if you can't change a tire? I'm just saying that IQ isn't everything.

Click to expand...

True dat^. The tests for them kinda sucks too.
I have yet to see a job where guessing the next shape pattern will get you a raise... Before you go flaming me ya I get the point of the test but IQ tests are flawed for so many reasons. To me its just a reason to brag.